Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
 

Your right SC Tom, herein Vegas it was 94* yesterday today its gonna be 105*
so something must be happening, and I still havent turned my heater on in my
car

Tunez


"SC Tom" <sc tom@my.place> wrote in message
news:Hq5rg.1833$7j7.1082@fe03.lga...
>
> "Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
> news:25ipa2dr49td06lee34ck5fenaooc9942h@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 21:03:00 -0500, "Brian" <nobody@yahoo.com> Gave us:
>>
>>>not the right place to post this crap.
>>
>> Not the right place to attempt to be accepted as a netkopp...
>
> This from someone who called someone else a "Top posting twit"? LOL!!
>
> Global warming must be true- it's a lot warmer today than it was 3 months
> ago!!
>
> SC Tom
>
>

Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
 

Being a part-time meteorologist, with an actual degree in meteorology, I
firmly believe in global warming. The evidence that the globe is warming
at a rapid rate is indisputable.

However, since "hard" data is only available for the last 150 years or so,
and "soft" data has only been extrapolated for the last 1000 years or so,
it is impossible to tell if man has caused this, or it is just a naturally
occuring phenonmena that has happened before at some point in time.

My personal opinion, if anyone cares, is that this has happened before
many, many times. And I do think it will get bad enough that life as we
know it will end, only to replaced by something else that will be referred
to as life. I do think some will survive, but most won't.

I also don't think there is a damned thing we can do about it. I think we
have a good 50-100 years left though.

And before you chastize me, I am not an alarmist. The data is there.
Something could change tomorrow to change the way the data is moving, and I
think that is a distinct possibility, but if it doesn't, you better learn
how to swim.

Eric

Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
 

Being a part-time meteorologist, with an actual degree in meteorology, I
firmly believe in global warming. The evidence that the globe is warming
at a rapid rate is indisputable.

However, since "hard" data is only available for the last 150 years or so,
and "soft" data has only been extrapolated for the last 1000 years or so,
it is impossible to tell if man has caused this, or it is just a naturally
occuring phenonmena that has happened before at some point in time.

My personal opinion, if anyone cares, is that this has happened before
many, many times. And I do think it will get bad enough that life as we
know it will end, only to replaced by something else that will be referred
to as life. I do think some will survive, but most won't.

I also don't think there is a damned thing we can do about it. I think we
have a good 50-100 years left though.

And before you chastize me, I am not an alarmist. The data is there.
Something could change tomorrow to change the way the data is moving, and I
think that is a distinct possibility, but if it doesn't, you better learn
how to swim.

Eric

Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
 

Being a part-time meteorologist, with an actual degree in meteorology, I
firmly believe in global warming. The evidence that the globe is warming
at a rapid rate is indisputable.

However, since "hard" data is only available for the last 150 years or so,
and "soft" data has only been extrapolated for the last 1000 years or so,
it is impossible to tell if man has caused this, or it is just a naturally
occuring phenonmena that has happened before at some point in time.

My personal opinion, if anyone cares, is that this has happened before
many, many times. And I do think it will get bad enough that life as we
know it will end, only to replaced by something else that will be referred
to as life. I do think some will survive, but most won't.

I also don't think there is a damned thing we can do about it. I think we
have a good 50-100 years left though.

And before you chastize me, I am not an alarmist. The data is there.
Something could change tomorrow to change the way the data is moving, and I
think that is a distinct possibility, but if it doesn't, you better learn
how to swim.

Eric

Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
 

Whether Samuelson accepts the "global warming"
theory/hypothesis/claim/tragedy or not:

Gore told us so, and reminds us.

He was literally laughed-at in 2000, and apparently here in 2006 too.

I voted for Gore, and hope to again in 2008.

Have that sickening/denying laugh at your children's/grandchildren's
expense.


kinkysr@yahoo.com wrote:
> Our only hope for "solving" global warming will be through technology
> that is not even ON today's drawing boards. So, relax. Enjoy life if
> you're Western or Japanese; hate life if you're third world; and strive
> to reach Western levels if you're China, India, Brazil or a few other
> good-life wannabees. Whether GW is real or fiction or someplace in
> between, the world --if not humankind--will get through global warming,
> sooner or later!
>
> =====
>
> "Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth"
>
> By Robert J. Samuelson
> The Washington Post
> Wednesday, July 5, 2006; A13
>
> "Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the
> next century, but -- regardless of whether it is or isn't -- we won't
> do much about it. We will (I am sure) argue ferociously over it and may
> even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to
> avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem,
> the less likely they are to be observed. Little will be done. . . .
> Global warming promises to become a gushing source of national
> hypocrisy.''
> -- This column, July 1997
>
>
> Well, so it has. In three decades of columns, I've never quoted myself
> at length, but here it's necessary. Al Gore calls global warming an
> "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a
> path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't
> know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major
> technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was
> obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious. Let me explain.
>
> >From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4
> billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per
> person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse
> gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in
> 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more
> energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty --
> and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth.
> With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than
> double by 2050.
>
> Just keeping annual greenhouse gas emissions constant means that the
> world must somehow offset these huge increases. There are two ways:
> Improve energy efficiency, or shift to energy sources with lower (or
> no) greenhouse emissions. Intuitively, you sense this is tough. China,
> for example, builds about one coal-fired power plant a week. Now a new
> report from the International Energy Agency in Paris shows all the
> difficulties (the population, economic growth and energy projections
> cited above come from the report).
>
> The IEA report assumes that existing technologies are rapidly improved
> and deployed. Vehicle fuel efficiency increases by 40 percent. In
> electricity generation, the share for coal (the fuel with the most
> greenhouse gases) shrinks from about 40 percent to about 25 percent --
> and much carbon dioxide is captured before going into the atmosphere.
> Little is captured today. Nuclear energy increases. So do "renewables"
> (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal); their share of global electricity
> output rises from 2 percent now to about 15 percent.
>
> Some of these changes seem heroic. They would require tough government
> regulation, continued technological gains and public acceptance of
> higher fuel prices. Never mind. Having postulated a crash energy diet,
> the IEA simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological
> change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today.
> The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent.
>
> Since 1800 there's been modest global warming. I'm unqualified to judge
> between those scientists (the majority) who blame man-made greenhouse
> gases and those (a small minority) who finger natural variations in the
> global weather system. But if the majority are correct, the IEA report
> indicates we're now powerless. We can't end annual greenhouse
> emissions, and once in the atmosphere, the gases seem to linger for
> decades. So concentration levels rise. They're the villains; they
> presumably trap the world's heat. They're already about 36 percent
> higher than in 1800. Even with its program, the IEA says another 45
> percent rise may be unavoidable. How much warming this might create is
> uncertain; so are the consequences.
>
> I draw two conclusions -- one political, one practical.
>
> No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth
> and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel)
> that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're
> "doing something." The result is grandstanding. Consider the Kyoto
> Protocol. It allowed countries that joined to castigate those that
> didn't. But it hasn't reduced carbon dioxide emissions (up about 25
> percent since 1990), and many signatories didn't adopt tough enough
> policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. By some estimates, Europe may
> overshoot by 15 percent and Japan by 25 percent.
>
> Ambitious U.S. politicians also practice this self-serving hypocrisy.
> Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a global warming program. Gore counts
> 221 cities that have "ratified" Kyoto. Some pledge to curb their
> greenhouse emissions. None of these programs will reduce global
> warming. They're public relations exercises and -- if they impose costs
> -- are undesirable. (Note: on national security grounds, I favor taxing
> oil, but the global warming effect would be trivial.) The practical
> conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only
> salvation is new technology.
>
> I once received an e-mail from an engineer. Thorium, he said. I had
> never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel that is more
> plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems. It's
> an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I
> gave up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is
> correct: Only an aggressive research and development program might find
> ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it.
> Perhaps some system could purge the atmosphere of surplus greenhouse
> gases?
>
> The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a
> moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient
> truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're
> helpless.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070400789.html

Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
 

Whether Samuelson accepts the "global warming"
theory/hypothesis/claim/tragedy or not:

Gore told us so, and reminds us.

He was literally laughed-at in 2000, and apparently here in 2006 too.

I voted for Gore, and hope to again in 2008.

Have that sickening/denying laugh at your children's/grandchildren's
expense.


kinkysr@yahoo.com wrote:
> Our only hope for "solving" global warming will be through technology
> that is not even ON today's drawing boards. So, relax. Enjoy life if
> you're Western or Japanese; hate life if you're third world; and strive
> to reach Western levels if you're China, India, Brazil or a few other
> good-life wannabees. Whether GW is real or fiction or someplace in
> between, the world --if not humankind--will get through global warming,
> sooner or later!
>
> =====
>
> "Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth"
>
> By Robert J. Samuelson
> The Washington Post
> Wednesday, July 5, 2006; A13
>
> "Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the
> next century, but -- regardless of whether it is or isn't -- we won't
> do much about it. We will (I am sure) argue ferociously over it and may
> even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to
> avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem,
> the less likely they are to be observed. Little will be done. . . .
> Global warming promises to become a gushing source of national
> hypocrisy.''
> -- This column, July 1997
>
>
> Well, so it has. In three decades of columns, I've never quoted myself
> at length, but here it's necessary. Al Gore calls global warming an
> "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a
> path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't
> know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major
> technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was
> obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious. Let me explain.
>
> >From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4
> billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per
> person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse
> gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in
> 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more
> energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty --
> and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth.
> With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than
> double by 2050.
>
> Just keeping annual greenhouse gas emissions constant means that the
> world must somehow offset these huge increases. There are two ways:
> Improve energy efficiency, or shift to energy sources with lower (or
> no) greenhouse emissions. Intuitively, you sense this is tough. China,
> for example, builds about one coal-fired power plant a week. Now a new
> report from the International Energy Agency in Paris shows all the
> difficulties (the population, economic growth and energy projections
> cited above come from the report).
>
> The IEA report assumes that existing technologies are rapidly improved
> and deployed. Vehicle fuel efficiency increases by 40 percent. In
> electricity generation, the share for coal (the fuel with the most
> greenhouse gases) shrinks from about 40 percent to about 25 percent --
> and much carbon dioxide is captured before going into the atmosphere.
> Little is captured today. Nuclear energy increases. So do "renewables"
> (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal); their share of global electricity
> output rises from 2 percent now to about 15 percent.
>
> Some of these changes seem heroic. They would require tough government
> regulation, continued technological gains and public acceptance of
> higher fuel prices. Never mind. Having postulated a crash energy diet,
> the IEA simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological
> change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today.
> The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent.
>
> Since 1800 there's been modest global warming. I'm unqualified to judge
> between those scientists (the majority) who blame man-made greenhouse
> gases and those (a small minority) who finger natural variations in the
> global weather system. But if the majority are correct, the IEA report
> indicates we're now powerless. We can't end annual greenhouse
> emissions, and once in the atmosphere, the gases seem to linger for
> decades. So concentration levels rise. They're the villains; they
> presumably trap the world's heat. They're already about 36 percent
> higher than in 1800. Even with its program, the IEA says another 45
> percent rise may be unavoidable. How much warming this might create is
> uncertain; so are the consequences.
>
> I draw two conclusions -- one political, one practical.
>
> No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth
> and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel)
> that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're
> "doing something." The result is grandstanding. Consider the Kyoto
> Protocol. It allowed countries that joined to castigate those that
> didn't. But it hasn't reduced carbon dioxide emissions (up about 25
> percent since 1990), and many signatories didn't adopt tough enough
> policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. By some estimates, Europe may
> overshoot by 15 percent and Japan by 25 percent.
>
> Ambitious U.S. politicians also practice this self-serving hypocrisy.
> Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a global warming program. Gore counts
> 221 cities that have "ratified" Kyoto. Some pledge to curb their
> greenhouse emissions. None of these programs will reduce global
> warming. They're public relations exercises and -- if they impose costs
> -- are undesirable. (Note: on national security grounds, I favor taxing
> oil, but the global warming effect would be trivial.) The practical
> conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only
> salvation is new technology.
>
> I once received an e-mail from an engineer. Thorium, he said. I had
> never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel that is more
> plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems. It's
> an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I
> gave up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is
> correct: Only an aggressive research and development program might find
> ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it.
> Perhaps some system could purge the atmosphere of surplus greenhouse
> gases?
>
> The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a
> moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient
> truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're
> helpless.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070400789.html

Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
 

Whether Samuelson accepts the "global warming"
theory/hypothesis/claim/tragedy or not:

Gore told us so, and reminds us.

He was literally laughed-at in 2000, and apparently here in 2006 too.

I voted for Gore, and hope to again in 2008.

Have that sickening/denying laugh at your children's/grandchildren's
expense.


kinkysr@yahoo.com wrote:
> Our only hope for "solving" global warming will be through technology
> that is not even ON today's drawing boards. So, relax. Enjoy life if
> you're Western or Japanese; hate life if you're third world; and strive
> to reach Western levels if you're China, India, Brazil or a few other
> good-life wannabees. Whether GW is real or fiction or someplace in
> between, the world --if not humankind--will get through global warming,
> sooner or later!
>
> =====
>
> "Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth"
>
> By Robert J. Samuelson
> The Washington Post
> Wednesday, July 5, 2006; A13
>
> "Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the
> next century, but -- regardless of whether it is or isn't -- we won't
> do much about it. We will (I am sure) argue ferociously over it and may
> even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to
> avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem,
> the less likely they are to be observed. Little will be done. . . .
> Global warming promises to become a gushing source of national
> hypocrisy.''
> -- This column, July 1997
>
>
> Well, so it has. In three decades of columns, I've never quoted myself
> at length, but here it's necessary. Al Gore calls global warming an
> "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a
> path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't
> know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major
> technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was
> obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious. Let me explain.
>
> >From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4
> billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per
> person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse
> gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in
> 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more
> energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty --
> and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth.
> With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than
> double by 2050.
>
> Just keeping annual greenhouse gas emissions constant means that the
> world must somehow offset these huge increases. There are two ways:
> Improve energy efficiency, or shift to energy sources with lower (or
> no) greenhouse emissions. Intuitively, you sense this is tough. China,
> for example, builds about one coal-fired power plant a week. Now a new
> report from the International Energy Agency in Paris shows all the
> difficulties (the population, economic growth and energy projections
> cited above come from the report).
>
> The IEA report assumes that existing technologies are rapidly improved
> and deployed. Vehicle fuel efficiency increases by 40 percent. In
> electricity generation, the share for coal (the fuel with the most
> greenhouse gases) shrinks from about 40 percent to about 25 percent --
> and much carbon dioxide is captured before going into the atmosphere.
> Little is captured today. Nuclear energy increases. So do "renewables"
> (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal); their share of global electricity
> output rises from 2 percent now to about 15 percent.
>
> Some of these changes seem heroic. They would require tough government
> regulation, continued technological gains and public acceptance of
> higher fuel prices. Never mind. Having postulated a crash energy diet,
> the IEA simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological
> change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today.
> The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent.
>
> Since 1800 there's been modest global warming. I'm unqualified to judge
> between those scientists (the majority) who blame man-made greenhouse
> gases and those (a small minority) who finger natural variations in the
> global weather system. But if the majority are correct, the IEA report
> indicates we're now powerless. We can't end annual greenhouse
> emissions, and once in the atmosphere, the gases seem to linger for
> decades. So concentration levels rise. They're the villains; they
> presumably trap the world's heat. They're already about 36 percent
> higher than in 1800. Even with its program, the IEA says another 45
> percent rise may be unavoidable. How much warming this might create is
> uncertain; so are the consequences.
>
> I draw two conclusions -- one political, one practical.
>
> No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth
> and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel)
> that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're
> "doing something." The result is grandstanding. Consider the Kyoto
> Protocol. It allowed countries that joined to castigate those that
> didn't. But it hasn't reduced carbon dioxide emissions (up about 25
> percent since 1990), and many signatories didn't adopt tough enough
> policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. By some estimates, Europe may
> overshoot by 15 percent and Japan by 25 percent.
>
> Ambitious U.S. politicians also practice this self-serving hypocrisy.
> Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a global warming program. Gore counts
> 221 cities that have "ratified" Kyoto. Some pledge to curb their
> greenhouse emissions. None of these programs will reduce global
> warming. They're public relations exercises and -- if they impose costs
> -- are undesirable. (Note: on national security grounds, I favor taxing
> oil, but the global warming effect would be trivial.) The practical
> conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only
> salvation is new technology.
>
> I once received an e-mail from an engineer. Thorium, he said. I had
> never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel that is more
> plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems. It's
> an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I
> gave up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is
> correct: Only an aggressive research and development program might find
> ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it.
> Perhaps some system could purge the atmosphere of surplus greenhouse
> gases?
>
> The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a
> moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient
> truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're
> helpless.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070400789.html

Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
 

I do not believe there is much disagreement about the earth warming, it has
been trending upward since the last ice age. The disagreement is to whether
man is the cause, or natural forces at work. Those that believe man is the
cause are choosing to disregard the other forces that have a far greater
effect than anything man to do to change thing up or down in reference to
the average earth temperature. The fact is the we know is better for you
crowd, has been wrong more then they have been right in the past


mike hunt


"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns97F8867EC2A5DXz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> Being a part-time meteorologist, with an actual degree in meteorology, I
> firmly believe in global warming. The evidence that the globe is warming
> at a rapid rate is indisputable.
>
> However, since "hard" data is only available for the last 150 years or so,
> and "soft" data has only been extrapolated for the last 1000 years or so,
> it is impossible to tell if man has caused this, or it is just a naturally
> occuring phenonmena that has happened before at some point in time.
>
> My personal opinion, if anyone cares, is that this has happened before
> many, many times. And I do think it will get bad enough that life as we
> know it will end, only to replaced by something else that will be referred
> to as life. I do think some will survive, but most won't.
>
> I also don't think there is a damned thing we can do about it. I think we
> have a good 50-100 years left though.
>
> And before you chastize me, I am not an alarmist. The data is there.
> Something could change tomorrow to change the way the data is moving, and
> I
> think that is a distinct possibility, but if it doesn't, you better learn
> how to swim.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>

Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
 

I do not believe there is much disagreement about the earth warming, it has
been trending upward since the last ice age. The disagreement is to whether
man is the cause, or natural forces at work. Those that believe man is the
cause are choosing to disregard the other forces that have a far greater
effect than anything man to do to change thing up or down in reference to
the average earth temperature. The fact is the we know is better for you
crowd, has been wrong more then they have been right in the past


mike hunt


"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns97F8867EC2A5DXz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> Being a part-time meteorologist, with an actual degree in meteorology, I
> firmly believe in global warming. The evidence that the globe is warming
> at a rapid rate is indisputable.
>
> However, since "hard" data is only available for the last 150 years or so,
> and "soft" data has only been extrapolated for the last 1000 years or so,
> it is impossible to tell if man has caused this, or it is just a naturally
> occuring phenonmena that has happened before at some point in time.
>
> My personal opinion, if anyone cares, is that this has happened before
> many, many times. And I do think it will get bad enough that life as we
> know it will end, only to replaced by something else that will be referred
> to as life. I do think some will survive, but most won't.
>
> I also don't think there is a damned thing we can do about it. I think we
> have a good 50-100 years left though.
>
> And before you chastize me, I am not an alarmist. The data is there.
> Something could change tomorrow to change the way the data is moving, and
> I
> think that is a distinct possibility, but if it doesn't, you better learn
> how to swim.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>

Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
 

I do not believe there is much disagreement about the earth warming, it has
been trending upward since the last ice age. The disagreement is to whether
man is the cause, or natural forces at work. Those that believe man is the
cause are choosing to disregard the other forces that have a far greater
effect than anything man to do to change thing up or down in reference to
the average earth temperature. The fact is the we know is better for you
crowd, has been wrong more then they have been right in the past


mike hunt


"Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
news:Xns97F8867EC2A5DXz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> Being a part-time meteorologist, with an actual degree in meteorology, I
> firmly believe in global warming. The evidence that the globe is warming
> at a rapid rate is indisputable.
>
> However, since "hard" data is only available for the last 150 years or so,
> and "soft" data has only been extrapolated for the last 1000 years or so,
> it is impossible to tell if man has caused this, or it is just a naturally
> occuring phenonmena that has happened before at some point in time.
>
> My personal opinion, if anyone cares, is that this has happened before
> many, many times. And I do think it will get bad enough that life as we
> know it will end, only to replaced by something else that will be referred
> to as life. I do think some will survive, but most won't.
>
> I also don't think there is a damned thing we can do about it. I think we
> have a good 50-100 years left though.
>
> And before you chastize me, I am not an alarmist. The data is there.
> Something could change tomorrow to change the way the data is moving, and
> I
> think that is a distinct possibility, but if it doesn't, you better learn
> how to swim.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>

Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared?RELAX!
 

Eric G. wrote:

> And before you chastize me, I am not an alarmist. The data is there.

I don't think the data is there. I've seen lots of debate about the
quality of the data and even the interpretation of it assuming it was
good data to begin with.

Matt

Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared?RELAX!
 

Eric G. wrote:

> And before you chastize me, I am not an alarmist. The data is there.

I don't think the data is there. I've seen lots of debate about the
quality of the data and even the interpretation of it assuming it was
good data to begin with.

Matt

Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared?RELAX!
 

Eric G. wrote:

> And before you chastize me, I am not an alarmist. The data is there.

I don't think the data is there. I've seen lots of debate about the
quality of the data and even the interpretation of it assuming it was
good data to begin with.

Matt

Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
 

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in news:%Terg.294$Pa.34789
@news1.epix.net:

> Eric G. wrote:
>
>> And before you chastize me, I am not an alarmist. The data is there.
>
> I don't think the data is there. I've seen lots of debate about the
> quality of the data and even the interpretation of it assuming it was
> good data to begin with.

You are certainly entitled to doubt the data. Coming from a layman
perspective, even though you certainly have better than average empiracal
abilities, I can understand that. I had my reservations too at first being
a little inexperienced in the archeological/meteorological relationship.
But after reading tons and tons of the research involved, I do believe it.
I have been wrong before though, and there really is no fool-proof way to
know for sure. With technology as it is today, it is the best we can do.

Eric

Re: GLOBAL WARMING: Gore & Other Nervous Nellies Got Ya Scared? RELAX!
 

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in news:%Terg.294$Pa.34789
@news1.epix.net:

> Eric G. wrote:
>
>> And before you chastize me, I am not an alarmist. The data is there.
>
> I don't think the data is there. I've seen lots of debate about the
> quality of the data and even the interpretation of it assuming it was
> good data to begin with.

You are certainly entitled to doubt the data. Coming from a layman
perspective, even though you certainly have better than average empiracal
abilities, I can understand that. I had my reservations too at first being
a little inexperienced in the archeological/meteorological relationship.
But after reading tons and tons of the research involved, I do believe it.
I have been wrong before though, and there really is no fool-proof way to
know for sure. With technology as it is today, it is the best we can do.

Eric